House Agriculture Committee contributes to a bumper crop of proposed climate change legislation

On March 12, 2009, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) announced that the committee, which has jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), is seeking comments from agricultural, environmental and other groups and members of the public on priorities for future climate change legislation. The committee has prepared an instruction letter and a questionnaire, with responses due by April 10, 2009.

Rep. Peterson’s announcement follows the committee’s February 12, 2009, passage of H.R. 977, The Derivatives Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2009 (“DMTAA”). Although the DMTAA has received attention primarily for its provisions addressing financial derivatives – including authorizing the CFTC to suspend U.S. trading of so-called “naked” credit default swaps under certain circumstances and requiring that most over-the-counter derivatives be cleared through central clearinghouses – the bill would also require carbon offsets and emissions allowances to be traded on a designated contract market under CFTC oversight. 

The DMTAA finds itself in the midst of a Congressional turf battle on both the financial derivatives and carbon emissions fronts. Introduced by Rep. Peterson, the DMTAA has been sent for review to the House Financial Services Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), has reportedly expressed displeasure that the Agriculture Committee jumped ahead on derivatives reform without input from the Financial Services Committee and has said that he plans to tackle legislation for a new systemic risk regulator first, with hearings scheduled for mid-to-late March 2009

The bill’s future in the carbon emissions arena is equally hazy. Edward Rosen, testifying on behalf of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, argued that the prohibition of off-exchange trading in carbon offsets and emission allowances would create an exchange monopoly and thus impede the successful development of cap-and-trade programs. Paul N. Cicio, President of Industrial Energy Consumers of America, expressed his concern that adoption of the DMTAA would prejudice the outcome of the debate on how to control GHG emissions and recommended that Congress consider regulatory options other than a cap-and-trade system.

Meanwhile, Congress is awash in competing legislative efforts, among them:

  • February 4, 2009: Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) introduced H.R. 889, the Save American Energy Act, which would create a federal energy efficiency resource standard for retail electricity and natural gas distributors. 
     
  • February 4, 2009: Rep. Markey joined Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) to introduce H.R. 890, the American Renewable Energy Act, which would create an electricity standard requiring that by 2025, 25% of electricity be generated from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal.
     
  • March 5, 2009: Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) introduced H.R. 1337, America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009, intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by imposing a tax on “taxable carbon substances,” which the bill defines to include coal, petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas.
     
  • March 5, 2009: Sen. John Thune (D-S.D.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced S. 527, which would amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit requiring farmers to purchase permits “for any carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production.” According to a press release from Sen. Thune’s office, the bill “will once and for all prevent the government from imposing an onerous ‘cow tax’ on farmers across the country.” S. 527 has been referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
     
  • March 11, 2009: Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (D-Neb.) introduced a similar bill, H.R. 1438, with the announced goal of “prohibit[ing] any Federal agency or official, in carrying out any Act or program to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change, from imposing a fee or tax on gaseous emissions emitted directly by livestock.” A press release from Rep. Fortenberry’s office quotes the Congressman as observing that “As climate change issues are debated, the consideration of a tax on natural livestock emissions is unreasonable and peculiar.” 
     
  • March 12, 2009: In response to reports that the administration was considering using budget reconciliation rules to shield a cap-and-trade bill from a threatened Republican filibuster, twenty-eight Senators wrote a letter to the leaders of the Senate Budget Committee, Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), voicing their opposition to “using the budget reconciliation process to expedite passage of climate legislation.” The group explained:

Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the US economy. Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow.  Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.

I'll put it this way: It is not included in the budget that I will present to my colleagues . . . . I have said for weeks, I don't think it is the right way to write substantive legislation, because if you get into the details – and we won't do that here – it just doesn't work very well.

There has also been activity on the regulatory front:

A rather active year so far, and we’re still in March . . . .